Cauda equina syndrome: a review of the current clinical and medico-legal position

Alan Gardner, Edward Gardner, Tim Morley, Alan Gardner, Edward Gardner, Tim Morley

Abstract

Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a rare condition with a disproportionately high medico-legal profile. It occurs most frequently following a large central lumbar disc herniation, prolapse or sequestration. Review of the literature indicates that around 50-70% of patients have urinary retention (CES-R) on presentation with 30-50% having an incomplete syndrome (CES-I). The latter group, especially if the history is less than a few days, usually requires emergency MRI to confirm the diagnosis followed by prompt decompression by a suitably experienced surgeon. Every effort should be made to avoid CES-I with its more favourable prognosis becoming CES-R while under medical supervision either before or after admission to hospital. The degree of urgency of early surgery in CES-R is still not in clear focus but it cannot be doubted that earliest decompression removes the mechanical and perhaps chemical factors which are the causes of progressive neurological damage. A full explanation and consent procedure prior to surgery is essential in order to reduce the likelihood of misunderstanding and litigation in the event of a persistent neurological deficit.

References

    1. Hosp Med. 2004 Apr;65(4):196-7
    1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Jan 15;32(2):207-16
    1. Aust N Z J Surg. 1993 Dec;63(12):927-34
    1. Neurosurg Focus. 2004 Jun 15;16(6):e4
    1. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009 Jul;11(1):90-1; author reply 91-2
    1. Eur Spine J. 2007 Dec;16(12):2143-51
    1. BMJ. 2009 Mar 31;338:b936
    1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1990 Sep;15(9):953-7
    1. J Urol. 2010 Jan;183(1):216-20
    1. Neurosurg Focus. 2004 Jun 15;16(6):e3
    1. Neurosurgery. 1993 May;32(5):743-6; discussion 746-7
    1. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008 Apr;8(4):305-20
    1. Neurosurg Focus. 2004 Jun 15;16(6):e6
    1. Br J Neurosurg. 2002 Aug;16(4):325-8
    1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984 Jan-Feb;9(1):7-15
    1. Muscle Nerve. 2007 Apr;35(4):529-31
    1. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008 Sep;90(6):513-6
    1. Surg Neurol. 2000 Feb;53(2):100-4; discussion 105
    1. Eur Spine J. 1999;8(4):317-22
    1. Br J Neurosurg. 1990;4(3):205-9
    1. Br J Neurosurg. 2005 Aug;19(4):301-6; discussion 307-8
    1. Neurosurg Focus. 2004 Jun 15;16(6):e7
    1. ANZ J Surg. 2005 Jun;75(6):498-500
    1. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1981 Jun 6;282(6279):1852-4
    1. J Neurosurg. 1987 Apr;66(4):614-7
    1. Neurosurg Focus. 2004 Jun 15;16(6):e5
    1. Br J Neurosurg. 2003 Apr;17(2):164-7
    1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991 Feb;16(2):162-6
    1. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1989 May-Jun;13(3):511-3
    1. Neurosurg Focus. 2004 Jun 15;16(6):e1
    1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Jun 1;29(11):1281-7
    1. Neurosurg Focus. 2004 Jun 15;16(6):e2
    1. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1950 Jun;6(6):403-12
    1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994 Feb 15;19(4):475-8
    1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993 Sep 1;18(11):1425-32
    1. Br Med J. 1959 Dec 26;2(5164):1434-9
    1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Jun 15;25(12):1515-22
    1. J Urol. 1986 Feb;135(2):308-12
    1. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 1999 Sep;57(3B):836-42
    1. Neurosurg Focus. 2004 Jun 15;16(6):e8

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi